Sensitivity Writers. AKA: avoiding cultural appropriate in writing

[Gradine]

You are saying that your right to be creative (free speech) trumps even the right to criticize your product (free speech). That’s elitism.

And your claims that “this requires educational and intellectual” sophistication beyond the average person's ability to comprehend is also elitist. Go back to my initial post. The rules are simple- they’re not even rules, but suggestions- and could generally be encapsulated by The Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This simple admonition is a core teaching to all of the world’s major faiths, and as such could be articulated and understood- even if not actually adhered to- by most of the adults on the planet. Most kids, too.

So, in fairness, I would say that the arguments against cultural appropriation go a little bit beyond the Golden Rule, in a way that I think really betrays how woefully inadequate the Golden Rule actually is. The problem with the Golden Rule is that it universalizes the particular; one could argue "well, this wouldn't bother me" and be fully covered under it. I'm sure that a certain comedian that's come up in this thread wouldn't particularly mind having done unto him what he did unto others. That doesn't make it anything reasonably close to OK.

Understanding and avoiding cultural appropriation is actually a matter of following the Platinum Rule: do unto others as they'd have done unto them. In some ways, it's actually a lot simpler to follow to the Golden Rule, as it doesn't even require any measure of self-awareness. You just need to listen to people. And take them in good faith.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

“Just because you can doesn't mean you should.”

Again, The Golden Rule.

Eh, the golden rule isn’t that great. Listen to people, not your own sense of what would bother you.

And yes, moral good has little to do with legality. All manner of terrible behavior is legal.
I was genuinely confused as to why legality came into the discussion at all.

So, in fairness, I would say that the arguments against cultural appropriation go a little bit beyond the Golden Rule, in a way that I think really betrays how woefully inadequate the Golden Rule actually is. The problem with the Golden Rule is that it universalizes the particular; one could argue "well, this wouldn't bother me" and be fully covered under it. I'm sure that a certain comedian that's come up in this thread wouldn't particularly mind having done unto him what he did unto others. That doesn't make it anything reasonably close to OK.

Understanding and avoiding cultural appropriation is actually a matter of following the Platinum Rule: do unto others as they've had done unto them. In some ways, it's actually a lot simpler to follow to the Golden Rule, as it doesn't even require any measure of self-awareness. You just need to listen to people. And take them in good faith.

Is it “as they’ve had done” or “as they’d have done”? Is the idea to listen to people about what constitutes doing right by them, or to repeat what has been done to them?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Gradine]

Is it “as they’ve had done” or “as they’d have done”? Is the idea to listen to people about what constitutes doing right by them, or to repeat what has been done to them?

Poor phrasing on my part; definitely "as they'd have done". Fixed it in my post

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Poor phrasing on my part; definitely "as they'd have done". Fixed it in my post

Okay! That makes the most sense but I thought I’d ask to be sure.

 

[Wiseblood]

I am a human being. We do not live on the planet Vulcan. We all have biases. Having a bias does not itself prove someone is wrong. It is merely something that must be considered to see fi it is leading astray of the point.



Ah, the nitpicking begins. So be it.

I was handed a posit to the effect of, "cultural appropriation does not exist". To dispel that notion, I must simply show that it does happen in fairly large populations. It is logically similar to disproving an absolute statement - I only really need a couple of examples to make the point.

So, "every drunk non-Latino fratboy on Cinco de Mayo" is sufficient. I don't need to deal with drunk sorority sisters, drunk latino fratboys, or any other drunkards on that day. I called out one specific group, because it was large enough for the point.

By the way, there could be drunk Latino fratboys on that day - but as other Latinos, within the US (where the "fratboy" population resides) they aren't in a notably superior cultural position over those of Mexican descent. They are borrowing a piece of culture, but aren't abusing their position in the process. The power-dynamic difference is a major point in the ethical issue.



I said, "pretty much everyone not of Native American descent". There are two other peoples who have similar spiritual forms - the Torres Straight Islanders number 4500 or so, and the Aboriginal Australians who number under one million. Other groups have animal spirits, but don't apply them in the same way as to make "my spirit animal" a meaningful statement.

Compared to the 300+ million population of the US, it looks to me that the "pretty much" holds nicely. Thank you.



Nothing I've said here is incoherent, as I've demonstrated. You are (perhaps unintentionally) passing over important phrases to get to that conclusion.

I am well aware that when things get heated, or people feel threatened in some way, they will tend to elide over segments, misread, or get impressions of text that align more with fears than with what is actually said. In this discussion, we all need to be conscious of this, because it leads to arguing against strawmen, as if that's meaningful. If you aren't discussing what was really said, there's no point in having the discussion.

I didn’t mean to imply that your bias invalidated your argument. Only that your argument formed from that bias served to group people by race not culture. Or specifically leading away from the point.

I thought the nit picking that I did was relevant to my statement. The people mainly cited were a racial demographic. I recognize now that you said pretty much everyone. I did not mean to put words into your mouth. I am sorry.

I never said you were incoherent. I thought you were clear. I only meant that the concept was incoherent. (Cultural appropriation.)

I find cultural appropriation a noxious concept it is true. In reviewing it, I still hold to that.

 

[BookBarbarian]

That's where the sidebar or designer note comes in. Be explicit in your use of real world cultural information and how you are interpreting it. This is a place where designer notes that you see in a lot of historical war games have rocked over the years. I was just reading some for a game called Pavlov's House and the developer explained how he had decided to incorporate the broader environment of the Stalingrad battlefield within the micro-environment of the single apartment block. Paizo used to incorporate some awesome design sidebars in their modules - I wish it was a more widespread practice in RPG and adventure design.

Solid use for adventure design. My mind was more going towards fantasy fiction. Probably because I've read a lot more fiction than played in a variety of adventures or RPGs.

I avoid it for the most part and just use extinct cultures best as I can.

Exceptions are if it's in a published adventure.

This is one think I've noticed about the Malazan books. Realistic-ish ancient cultures abound.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, you feel like you have a right to the cultural artifacts of others, regardless how they feel about it?

I feel that everybody has the right to use ideas, music, and other cultural elements. I think what you are doing is treating these cultures like museum pieces rather than living breathing people that we interact with and get to exchange things with. But this is the foundation of cultural exchange. I don't see how you can say for example that Americans own the cultural artifact of apple pie and get to dictate how others make use of it. Or that Egyptians have control of the iconography of the pyramids, or that the Italians (or perhaps the spanish) get to determine who gets to copy the Roman gladius and how. If you limit music and art to local cultural boundaries, or place these kinds of strange restrictions on them (i.e. you somehow need to get permission from an entire culture), you are not going to see the kind of devlopment and evolution of culture that is natural to the world. You will just see stagnation. To me it is almost like a form of cultural nationalism. Or a weird way of treating cultural artifacts as IP (our IP laws are already restrictive enough, do we need to now have further restrictions on the flow of ideas?).

That said I am not out to hurt people, and I don't think it is fair to assume that you can read the minds of an entire culture. You say 'regardless of how they feel about it', but then 1) what if their feelings are misguided and 2) how do you gauge their feelings? People are not monolithic. Like I said, I've talked to people from other cultures about this stuff and the reaction I usually get is very different from the reaction in this thread.

And like I said, there are problems in the world. But fretting over cultural appropriation doesn't fix them. They are much more easily addressed by directly dealing with more concrete problems themselves like racism (or materially helping people who need help).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Understanding and avoiding cultural appropriation is actually a matter of following the Platinum Rule: do unto others as they'd have done unto them. In some ways, it's actually a lot simpler to follow to the Golden Rule, as it doesn't even require any measure of self-awareness. You just need to listen to people. And take them in good faith.

Except the reality is always going to be a lot more complicated then this. Say you listen to people; do you think you will get one universal response from them? Most people just end up getting anecdotal feedback from people they happen to know or follow who belong to that group (but they don't speak for the entire group). And even then there is always the possibility their reaction isn't a reasonable one. Just because people feel something, it doesn't automatically make their reaction right or true. Especially if that reaction has a negative effect on our ability to have a free exchange of ideas and a free expression of creativity.

I think where you are coming from is a good place. I think you are coming from a place of compassion. But like with the other controversial we just had, I think what is occurring is it is leading to an excess where the result is a place that isn't terribly reasonable or realistic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, in fairness, I would say that the arguments against cultural appropriation go a little bit beyond the Golden Rule, in a way that I think really betrays how woefully inadequate the Golden Rule actually is. The problem with the Golden Rule is that it universalizes the particular; one could argue "well, this wouldn't bother me" and be fully covered under it. I'm sure that a certain comedian that's come up in this thread wouldn't particularly mind having done unto him what he did unto others. That doesn't make it anything reasonably close to OK.

Understanding and avoiding cultural appropriation is actually a matter of following the Platinum Rule: do unto others as they'd have done unto them. In some ways, it's actually a lot simpler to follow to the Golden Rule, as it doesn't even require any measure of self-awareness. You just need to listen to people. And take them in good faith.

IME, those who counter “it wouldn’t bother me” in such discussions are usually being intellectually dishonest in some way OR don’t have an analogous potential grievance to give them the proper perspective.

Illustrating the second: It’s hard to apply the golden rule to a plea that “X is sacred to me, please don’t use X like you’re intending” if you don’t have a genuine understanding of what sacred means; that it is more than just “really important”. There’s no basis for a mutual understanding of what that violation would feel like.